HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-2268 criminalCOMMONWEALTH
VS.
RODNEY DALE CONRAD
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
99-2268 CRIMINAL
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925
On May 9, 2000, the defendant, following trial by jury, was found guilty of driving under
the influence. The court found the defendant guilty of count 2, maximum speed limits, a
summary offense. He was subsequently sentenced to undergo a period of incarceration of not
less than six days nor more than twenty-three months. It appearing that he had served his
minimum term, he was paroled immediately with conditions. This appeal followed.
In his statement of matters complained of on appeal, the defendant raises one issue;
whether there was sufficient evidence to establish that he was under the influence of alcohol to a
degree that rendered him incapable of safe driving. The well-established test for the sufficiency
of evidence in a criminal case is whether, viewing all the evidence admitted at the trial in a light
most favorable to the Commonwealth and drawing all reasonable inferences in the
Commonwealth's favor, there is sufficient evidence to enable the trier of fact to find every
element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Gibson., 447 Pa. Super. 132,
668 A.2d 552 (1995). Taken in that light, the facts are as follows.
On July 31, 1999, at approximately 2'00 a.m., Officer James L. Peterson was stationed in
a parking lot on Route 11 in North Middleton Township. A red Ford Tempo caught his attention
because it appeared to be speeding. Officer Peterson pulled out and followed the vehicle north
on Route 11. Using the speedometer in his police cruiser, he clocked the speed of the red
99-2268 CRIMINAL
Tempo, for the requisite three-tenths of a mile, at fifty,five miles per hour in a thirty-five mile-
per-hour zone. During the clock of the vehicle, Officer Peterson observed the defendant's
driver's side tires cross the center line.
Officer Peterson activated his emergency lights to stop the red Tempo. As he approached
the vehicle, he observed that the driver was the only person in the car. When confronted, the
defendant apologized to the officer and admitted that he was traveling fast. At that time, the
officer detected a strong odor of alcohol on the defendant' s breath, bloodshot eyes and slurred
speech. He also observed two coolers in the back of the car and empty beer cans behind the
driver's seat on the floor. The defendant admitted that he had been drinking.
Officer Peterson asked the defendant to step out of the car and perform a field sobriety
test. As the defendant got out of the car, the officer observed him stagger. Following the test
and based on all of his other observations, Officer Peterson concluded that the defendant was
driving under the influence to a degree which rendered him incapable of safe driving. Officer
Peterson transported Mr. Conrad to the Carlisle Hospital. There, the defendant was informed
concerning the implied consent law but refused to allow blood to be taken. He was then taken to
the police station to be processed. At that time, the defendant agreed to have his blood taken, but
Officer Peterson informed him that it was too late.
In order to prove a violation under 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 373 l(a)(1), the Commonwealth must
show: (1) that the defendant was the operator of a motor vehicle and (2) that while operating the
vehicle, the defendant was under the influence of alcohol to such a degree as to render him or her
incapable of safe driving. Commonwealth v. Verticelli, 550 Pa. 435,448,706 A.2d 820, 826
(1998). To establish that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol to such a degree as to
99-2268 CRIMINAL
render him incapable of safe driving, it must be shown that alcohol has substantially impaired the
normal mental and physical faculties required to safely operate a vehicle. Commonwealth v....
Montini, 712 A.2d 761,768 (Pa. Super. 1998). "Substantial impairment, in this context, means a
diminution or enfeeblement in the ability to exercise judgment, to deliberate or to react prudently
to changing circumstances and conditions." Id_._~.
Evidence that the driver was not in control of himself, such as failing to pass a field
sobriety test, may establish that the driver was under the influence of alcohol to a degree which
rendered him incapable of safe driving, notwithstanding the absence of evidence of erratic or
unsafe driving. Commonwealth v. Feathers, 442 Pa. Super 490, 501,660 A.2d 90, 95 (Pa. Super
1995) (en banc), affirmed, 546 Pa. 139, 683 A.2d 289 (1996). A police officer who has perceived
a defendant's appearance and acts is competent to express an opinion as to the defendant's state
of intoxication and ability to safely drive a vehicle. Id.
Here the defendant manifested the normal signs of intoxication; slurred speech, bloodshot
eyes, and a staggering gait. He was observed to drive across the center line. Officer Peterson
opined, from his training and experience, that the defendant was unable to safely operate a
vehicle by virtue of intoxication. This evidence, when combined, is sufficient to support the
instant conviction.
September c}' ,2000 ,-~~ /~J. ~
99-2268 CRIMINAL
Jonathan B irbeck, Esquire
Chief Deputy District Attorney
Aria Waller, Esquire
Assistant Public Defender